2007 Pa. Super. 369 - Commonwealth v. Sodomsky’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Richard Easting was the senior sales assistant in the technology department of the Circuit City Store located on Woodland Road, Wyomissing, Berks County. Mr. Easting testified that on October 15, 2004, [ ] Kenneth Sodomsky, came to Circuit City and asked Mr. Easting to install an optical drive and DVD burner into his computer. The work order that [Sodomsky] executed that day authorized Circuit City to install and configure the optical drive unit and DVD in his desktop computer. In accordance with store practice, Mr. Easting summarized to [Sodomsky] “what is done during the installation.” [Sodomsky] was informed that as part of the installation process, the installer would “have to make sure [the DVD burner] works.” There is no indication that [Sodomsky] asked how the DVD burner would be tested or in any manner restricted what procedure could be utilized to confirm the burner’s operability. [Sodomsky] requested that the work be performed on an expedited basis, and Mr. Easting instructed him to return in approximately one hour. Toby Werner was in the middle of the installation process when Stephen Ric-hert, the head of personal computer repairs at that Circuit City, arrived. Mr. Richert testified that the DVD drive was installed when he arrived in the department, but the software had not yet been installed. Mr. Richert explained that all DVD burners and players were accompanied by software. 2 Mr. Richert testified specifically that at Circuit City, with “every installation” of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 84 - Commonwealth v. Sodomsky

2. “[t]he plain view doctrine provides that evidence in plain view of the police can be seized without a warrant, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 408 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), as modified by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990), and it was adopted by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. McCullum, 529 Pa. 117 , 602 A.2d 313 (1992). The plain view doctrine applies if 1) police did not violate the Fourth Amendment during the course of their arrival at the location where they viewed the item in question; 2) the item was not obscured and could be seen plainly from that location [and] the incriminating nature of the item was readily apparent; and [ (3) ] police had the lawful right to access the item.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 283 - Commonwealth v. Perel

3. “knowingly exposed the contents of his computer to the public and [ ] lost any reasonable expectation of privacy in those contents”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Kane